Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziaul Haque (academic)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ziaul Haque (academic)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  06:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 07:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 07:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:N and WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Keep did not notice the "+ academic" element. Concur with notable results per WP:PROF.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Internet searches in English will always understate results for people from non-Anglophone country, and in this case there is massive duplication of hits with Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (very often spelled Ziaul Haque), Syed Mohammad Ziaul Haque and others. Do I have to point out that "anybody + academic" is a really really stupid search query on which to base any conclusion? Perhaps I do.  The number of references to his works in this 2016 book published by Springer suggest he is a considerable authority in his field. If he were American, writing on American topics, we would not be having this discussion. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment For academics, WP:GNG is usually beside the point; the relevant guideline is WP:PROF. Since he worked in the humanities (as opposed to, say, mathematics) the most pertinent criterion is likely to be the influence of his books. I found three scholarly reviews of Landlord and Peasant in Early Islam without trouble, which leads me to suspect that he might pass WP:PROF. I second the concern about Anglophone bias in search results. The article needs editing for tone, but that's not a matter for AfD. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Addendum Also, editing Islamic Studies counts in his favor by WP:PROF. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite per XOR&X39;easter's research. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Johnbod and XOR&#39;easter.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR. I added the reviews found by XOR'easter and a few more besides. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep As revised, it's clear that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.